And You Say I Don't Have a Sense of Humor. . .

Laff of the day Texts from Hillary . . . .

Pumas and Bigfoots and Loch Ness Monsters

Is there more than one "puma" or is this a media-invented pehnomenon? So far, I've only seen one actual woman who is promising to vote for McCain because Hillary didn't win the nomination.

I'm hearing all kinds of crazy explanations for why a woman who voted for Hillary would be mad enough to vote for McCain now, but none of it makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

I'm even one of that generation who thinks we're about 235 years overdue to elect a woman president, and yet somehow I don't hold Barack personally responsible for Hillary's losing the primaries! Duh.

Even if I did, I wouldn't now turn around and vote for John McCain. That would be like joining Vegetarians for Burger King, or signing up with Log Cabin Republicans, even.

No sane Democratic woman would ever support the Neanderthal the GOP is planning to insert into the White House this fall. This is not a brilliant observation, I know, but it's all I've got, so I'm clearly missing something vital here.

Ideas? Somebody clue me in. I can think of no reason why a disappointed Hillary supporter would vote for John Mccain. But I need to understand what kind of insanity has befallen that poor woman so that if there actually are others, we can take some of it and make a vaccine.

"No Way, No How, No McCain!"

Hillary gave the best speech of the convention so far, and in terms of her assigment, it was nothing but net! Hillary was never better, never more gracious, never more the leader than tonight.

A thermo-nuclear world riven by fundamentalists of several stripes; wars of choice and profiteering; a planet sick from human greed; a nation hemorrhaging from the blades of big cars and big oil; a government careening toward a politics of final solutions; a people being deliberately underpaid, underprotected, and undermined. These are a few of the bigger stakes.

She brought us all right back on track: It's not about the personalities. It's about the policies.

Hillary brought the energy back to the party. Now let's get going.

Where Clinton Went Wrong

Earlier I wrote that HRC's tack to the Right was one reason she lost. And I'm not sad that she lost. She made me furious too many times to regret that she won't be in my face to make me furious regularly any more.

Later I was surfing the web and came across this explanation of why being sad about Clinton's losing could be an affront to women of color.

"You said,

'Those of us who care about institutional misogyny (and, again, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive groups) don’t have that consolation, as regards a barrier being broken with regard to misogyny. There was no transcendence; only a loss.'

"I feel your loss, I understand why it hurts to see a woman lose, probably (I disagree, but I am willing to see your point) because of sexism."

"But some of us who care about institutional misogyny don’t feel a loss at Clinton not being elected. There would have been no barrier broken if she were elected. I personally don’t look at Clinton and think–geez, look at all she accomplished–now I can do the same thing–I think–geez–she supported the militarization of the Mexican/U.S. border. There are women now being raped, arrested, imprisoned, and ripped from their children because she actively supports increased militarization at the border."

Read the whole post. It is an education.

It isn't OK to tack to the Right. There are consequences.

Rush, Rush the Toilet Brush

From Media Matters today:

On the May 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that "one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan."

OK, see, wouldn't we have had to do more than merely advocate for equal education opportunities for girls and women to "remove the competitive nature of boys"?

Like, maybe, capture them all and drain their testosterone one little gonad at a time? Or round up all the daddies and mommies and take the competition gene right out of their DNA?

Rush again broadcasts his weakness as a person and as a man. He's telling us that just the search for female equality so threatens him that he feels justified in surrendering his honor and integrity. In public, yet.

He's fine with lying right out loud, with demonizing people who disagree with him, and with distorting the public record. He's fine with misleading people who are less informed and weaker than he is. That makes him sociopathic and generally unfit for the company of decent people.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Bush, Lott, Tancredo, Bill Donohue, Hagee, Robertson, McCain--guys like that may as well brand giant "Is" in their foreheads, for Insecure. For, what they say is really very telling. Over and over they light up in neon the core flaw in men of the Bush Davidian Right. To feel secure, capable, and competent, they have to stand on top of somebody else. If it's not Iraq, women, or Latinos, well, there're always Black people. To wit:

Limbaugh then said, "They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. ... [L]iberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because [Sen.] Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate." He concluded, "So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today."

Mmmmmm, cute and coherent, too!

If these guys don't get clear of that gaping inferiority complex very soon, or we don't clear them out of the halls of power, they'll take us all down.

Sad Goodbyes

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night. I watched for as long as I could bear it, and felt that I was watching hurt and exhaustion meet desperation in the nation's first viable female presidential candidate. I felt sad, disgusted, and weary, and wanted it to end.

How to account for this outcome? Old-style politics, 20 years of media spite and malice, an unfortunate manner and look, decisions about leadership, and a couple of disastrous public policy decisions.

In all respects but the second, this is the name of the game. She paid her money and took her choice, and it didn't work. If she had differentiated herself from her husband's centrist-to-right politics, it's possible that she could have inflamed the base in a good way despite the other circumstances, but she tacked to the Right during her time in the Senate, and we noticed.

The Iraq vote, the Iran vote, and the care NOT to lead on issues of critical, vital importance to us--on domestic intelligence, judicial appointments, the Occupation, alternative energy, women's and gay rights, and education, to name a few balls dropped by this and the last bunch of congressional Democrats--will cost her her place at the head of the Party, and she earned the loss.

Why not apply the same standard to Obama? I do. But Obama has a shorter track-record on centrist-to-Right votes. His position on the Occupation distinguishes him as someone capable of applying sense even in the midst of a jingoistic, xenophobic hoorah hoopla. This offsets, to some extent, the perception his moderation creates with the Left side of the base.

Obama's manner and look work to his advantage, not to his disadvantage. He is bringing a desperately needed tone of rationality and civility to the public discourse. In the process, the Right is being shown up for what it is. This is something that Dean didn't accomplish and Clinton couldn't, both of them because their caustic attacks (however gratifying) didn't create the foil necessary to expose the Right's nastiness. Obama shrewedly read the mood of the nation and judged the correct tactic for dealing with the likes of Ann Coulter. Let us pray that his strategy will prevail through the general brawl coming up.

What he hasn't had to confront, and this makes the competition a lot less than even, is 20 years of incessant, non-stop media harrassment. I sincerely doubt that most men and any woman could prevail given that huge and relentless chorus of vilification. It never stopped. No matter what she says or does or wears, no matter where she goes or who she speaks with, it doesn't stop. And the smug satisfaction being communicated in various ways by Blitzer, Crowley, Matthews, and the rest, is really too much.

This must hurt, and I can't blame Hillary for being eroded and beaten down and wearied to the point that one nice word from a stranger in the crowd could bring tears to her eyes. There are times when all of us have experienced ostracism of the kind that seems to permeate every port in the storm; we can relate. But I don't know how many of us have experienced this kind of relentless mockery, scrutiny, disparagement, and distortion for 20 years. I feel sorry for her, and angry at the country that couldn't or wouldn't do better by her.

Now I want her to get off the horse, take a long, hot bath, and sleep for a couple of months. When she wakes up, I hope it will be to a kinder world.

Obama-Clinton

My sense of what's going on in the Obama sweep is this.

First, there has been, without doubt, an incessant media assault on Hillary Clinton. Actually, truth to tell, it began 18 years ago, with Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, who haven't stopped the innuendo, baiting, negative characterization, insulting comparisons, questions of motive, and allegations of strong-arming. If this hasn't tinctured the environment, then why do we spend millions for television advertising? The commentators can hardly contain their glee that Clinton is trailing Obama tonight. Why should they? It's been a partisan rampage without any bigotry whatsoever, and they appear to be winning.

Second, Clinton fatigue. Even strong Clinton supporters aren't all enthusiastic about having to endure more sour and divisive media attacks on the President and First Gentleman.

Third, campaign style. Clinton just isn't a fascinating stump speaker.

Fourth, the Iraq occupation vote and the Iran vote.

Fifth, misogyny is alive and well. Behaviors that don't register so much as a grimace in male candidates are framed in the least flattering terms when seen in a female candidate. How much of this is true of the grassroots is a good question, but again, the influence of mainly male media commentators has to have had a negative effect. Then, too, men by and large do not support this female. I strongly doubt their view is entirely substantive. The probability is that they can't hack the prospect of a woman war president.

Sixth, this Democratic Congress has dragged Hillary down. It has capitulated, underperformed, chickened out, and altogether failed to stop the most disastrous presidency in US history. As a result, when the voters demand change, they don't just mean "from Republicans." Clinton and Obama are both senators, true, but only she is associated with a past Democratic administration. She has the misfortune of campaigning at a time when the country is fed up with old political faces.

Seventh, Obama is a brilliant candidate--an inspiring orator, a quick wit, an attractive presence, and a vigorous young man.

And eighth, and I believe this to be determining: the nation is desperate for a statesman or stateswoman, not a politician. Fatefully, for good or ill, Obama appears to fit that bill, but Hillary fits the other. Here her karma has caught her. All those careful centrist to Republican-Lite votes that enabled her candidacy threaten, ironically, to sink it. McCain's polling backs this up. Time and again, people say that they vote for him because they want a straight talker, a leader. That is he no such thing is beside the point. Perception is all, and what's winning this contest is the perception that we have a statesman on our hands in Barack Hussein Obama.

The hunger for leadership, however, is mirrored in this country by revulsion at the prospect of a progressive leader. We've known this since FDR at least, and we've seen how far that revulsion is prepared to go in JFK and Bobby. You will understand, and perhaps forgive me, if I say that I fear for him. Those who believe that Armaggeddon will usher in the Second Coming also see it as a political priority. This is a measure of their extremism and a pointer to the source of their fervor. If we thought the anti-Communists were formidable, the Christianists, Survivalists, Militiamen, the mercenaries, the race purists, the male supremacists, and the Dominion theologists will make them seem like guests at a bridge party.

Where's the Sexism in this Contest? All Over the Place

1. Hillary did not merely ride Bill's coattails. That's way misleading. Look at her own record up to the WH. Pretty effing impressive if you ask me. Moving right along: Starting after the WH years, the reality is that she picked a state where she was a carpetbagger, worked her butt off, and won the Senate twice on her own merits. Bill's Harlem office doesn't mean Jack in Buffalo. She had visibility and name recognition. Besides, the coattails argument erases her contribution to Bill's two victories--contributions seen and not seen by the public.

OK, sure, she was well known because of the WH years, but don't forget, in her case, "well known" is hardly undiluted glory. As of Monica, if not long before, Bill's coatttails were thoroughly muddied. As a result, Hillary couldn't do anything right. If she stood by her man, she condoned his behavior. If she didn't stand by her man, she didn't stand by her man. Same old, same old. A woman in public is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.

Also--and this is crucial: The Right spent $90M attacking her for Travelgate and Whitewatergate and the cookie episode and on and on for 8 years, followed by 8 more during her Senate tenure. That's a LOT of bad press. We're talking CONCENTRATE. No candidate has that to contend with. I doubt that any candidate ever has, with the possible exception of Lincoln's second run.

So tell me, you who say she is coattailing: What should she have done? Cancel her own ambitions because people would say she's riding his coattails? I think that's buying into a rightwing smear. I really do. It completely elides her own accomplishments AND the severe press/investigative obstacles she had taken on--is still taking on--for lo these many years. It also subordinates her own volition and career objectives to his shadow. That's hardly an enlightened feminist stance.

IMHO, to say that she rode his coattails to this candidacy is to completely overlook that 3/4ths of the story! Its not like she didn't travel to 75 countries, or whatever, and have to be seriously briefed politically, socially and culturally while First Lady for 8 years, and make highest-level international contacts, and sit in on highest-level assessments of it all. For all we know, she was the brains of Bill's best moves. It's not like that's never happened, is it? So shouldn't we give that possibility just the teensiest consideration? He's smart, but he's also charismatic. He hasn't had to be anything like as brilliant as she.

And puh-leeze. It's not like she was Mamie Eisenhower relative to his Ike, either. Of course she has experience, and it's legitimate.

However, I do admit that it's hard to see where she starts and he stops, and that, I think, is a real feminist issue now.

At least I feel, in myself, that I owe her a clear-eyed look at who she is independent of him, of his fuckups and his triumphs. For instance, I have to believe that she has learned a lot in the last ever how long it's been since she was in the WH.

To think that we know her now--through the crooked prism of Senate politics--is naive. IMHO. Take the Iran vote. If she had voted against it, she would have lost every pro-Israel Jew in the country.

What? We should blame her for manuvering to position herself for a run for the WH when every other politician in history has done the same thing? I think SHE is getting incredible scrutiny here, and on the "crying," and on the sincerity, and on the toughness, and on the "coldness," scrutiny that no man would EVER get or has ever gotten. Show me a man who's had to deal with Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer.

Bottom line. This means that you and I have to wade through six feet of sewage to get to the place with Hillary where Obama and the GOP guys are starting from. It's not easy.

I can't judge Hillary by the same standards that I would apply to a man because we live in a sexist world and because she has picked up a HUGE amount of collateral fire thanks to Bill. And then, adding to THAT, don't forget that Hillary qua female, qua woman, brought out the raving misogynistic Right. They're slithering all over the tube now, too, as they have been for the last 16 years. You think this hasn't had an effect on our appraisal of Hillary Clinton today? You'd be nutz.

Some days I'm amazed she's still walking around upright. Nixon would have said, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore!"

OK.

This doesn't mean that I approve of her every vote or utterance. There are consequences with me for playing politics with votes like Iran. And yes, I am angry that she did not show actual LEADERSHIP during the 2003-2007 years, even as I know that if she had, she'd be DOA because she is (a) a woman, and (b) Mrs. Bill Clinton.

I think it's this asymmetry--this sexism factor--that makes it so difficult for me to weigh her against Obama cleanly and clearly. I don't think it can be done easily. The last 16 years have added quite a few feathers to her side of the scale, and I don't mean in a good way.

And no, I do not think that, so far anyway, O has had a countervaling racism factor to deal with. He might yet, but he hasn't so far, IMHO. He's very "clean," in Biden's words.

This is tough going for me. I'm struggling to see this all clearly.

Last Night's Democratic Debate

Loved the tone. The grown-ups came back. Loved the attacks on Republicans instead of each other, for a change. A favorite moment: Hillary was talking about why she voted for invasion authority. When she was done, that idiot Wolf Blitzer said, "So I'm hearing you say you were naive about the president?" And the crowd booed him. Really let him have it. FINALLY. Are you sick of the constant belittling of Hillary? It's time to tell the media puppets to shut their moufs. They aren't, as they say in consulting, "adding value."

Hillary came off as by far the better informed. Time and again she delivered a depth of discussion that impressed me and that cast Obama in a less than flattering light. It wasn't helped the few times the camera caught him looking skyward, vague, bored perhaps. He didn't look engaged and on top of the subject. That's my point.

I love Clinton's uncompromising insistance that universal health coverage is a core Democratic value. Paying for health care is the number-one cause of bankruptcy in the US. It's not in our own families' interests to let ancient Republican chatter about "socialized medicine" scare us away. I prefer Clinton's approach to health care, and I am totally fine with eliminating Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. Let them pay their fair share of the cost of living in the USA. It ain't like it's free.

Obama is a terrific speaker. He's definitely in Bill's league in his ability to speak easily in public and establish real rapport with the people. He has a delightful personality, and I have a great deal of confidence in his wisdom, which is the essential characteristic of a good president. (W illustrated this by demontrating its utter absense.) I need to hear more specific programs from Obama--and Clinton, too--on the environment, the economy, immigration, "free" trade, the "free" market and corporate regulation, the housing crisis, reigning in fraud and corruption in the defense industry and at the Pentagon, and domestic security issues like the so-called "Patriot Act."

It's a tough call. I'm pissed that MoveOn has endorsed Obama so soon because I'm not ready to choose yet and I think I've got a lot of company. Substantive discussions like last night's, only less hurried, would be a huge help.

And so a lot less static from Wolf, Joe, Chris, Bill, Candy, Andrea, and the rest of the tired old, same-old, same-old dreary political commentators. Is there a place where these people can retire, out of sight and out of mind?

Kennedy Touched History Today

I believe Sen. Ted Kennedy may have changed the course of the Democratic nomination today, and possibly even the outcome of the November election. His speech at American University was vintage Kennedy, one goosebump moment after another. His emphasis was on the future, on the vast, untapped capacity of America's youth to make a different world. His message, that one again, history tells us that the moment has come for a new generation of leadership, may well be the theme that casts Clinton in the most unflattering light possible. I believe, with Kennedy, that that moment has indeed come. And that is what, I think, will doom Clinton in the end.

It isn't about race or gender. It isn't only about changed policies. It is about a deeper and more profound change, and it is about our giving our faith and blessing to the next generation to lead us to a world that the Bushes and the McCains and the Romneys and the Huckabees cannot see and do not want to see.

Edwards sees that world, but he does not inspire Americans the way Obama inspires Americans. It is too bad, for Edwards' hope of the presidency, that Obama has that ineffable Kennedyesque charisma. It is too bad, because Edwards' portfolio of policies, and his deep and abiding grounding in the traditional New Deal Democratic Party, are desperately needed.

Clinton sees that world, but has not had the courage to lead us there. Too many times she has capitulated to Centrist-Right visions, been too careful about where she placed her feet, too safe, and too focused on her own career rather than the needs of the nation.

I remain an Edwards supporter, but I also know that Edwards will not be the nominee. I hope, in the interim between now and November, to be converted. I hope that Obama can convince me that his centrist-Right capitulations will not turn out to be the real Obama, and instead, that he truly does have a wisdom beyond his years and his experience, and will have the courage to lead us to a greener, more just, and wiser future.

Time to Stop the Demospat

I wrote earlier, here, that the Democrats are risking a long-term rupture between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. How that translates to African Americans and Other is anybody's guess at this point. If we go by what the pollsters tell us, younger African Americans trend toward Obama, and older African Americans trend toward Clinton. We can only hope that the spat ends quickly, and that hurt feelings are sincerely addressed and healed, or younger voters may find other things to do in November. God forbid.

Neither candidate is well served. The media mouths are trumpeting the spat to the heavens, seeming to take joy in making the Democrats--especially Bill Clinton--look worse than perhaps is the case. In my view, the candidates are not out of historical bounds in their remarks, after all. The tempers and sensitivities, however, never easily controlled in matters of race and gender, seem to be rising by the hour. Dobbs and Schneider, Blitzer and Cafferty and Crowley, at least, are talking of proprieties and behavior unbecoming a President, but I don't see that.

What I do see is ammo that Republicans, media critics, and Clinton foes can sack up and stow away for the general election. Two of our three leading candidates are behaving childishly, and that won't play well framed in the Oval Office.

Note to the DNC: Call them into the principal's office and read them the riot act.

Baiting and the Peril of the Democratic Party

There's nothing that Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, Howie Kurtz, Chuck Dodd, Faux Noise, and their corporate masters would like better than to see Democrats collapse in a sex/race feud.

Listening to a snippet this morning of Blitzer interviewing prominent former Senator Tom Daschle, now Obama campaign adviser, I was struck by two things. Although the adviser repeatedly emphasized that the public is sick of he said/she said, Wolf ignored him and, over and over, pressed for answers on he said/she said, including Bill Clinton's "fairytale" critique and Hillary Clinton's comments about LBJ and MLK. And despite his protests to the contrary, the Obama guy delighted in taking what he hoped would be hits at Clinton on, guess what, he said/she said.

These two candidates must understand that news media like controversy--real or contrived--and that their corporate owners have a dog in this fight and it isn't a Democrat. It's time for a big WAKE-UP CALL to both Clinton and Obama, on equal terms, with equal emphasis, saying, "DO NOT RESPOND TO HE SAID/SHE SAID BY RACE- AND SEX-BAITING. PERIOD."

It's going to be tough because the media keep inventing controversies and distorting especially the Clintons' statements.

Who with two sober brain cells to rub together can be offended by the statement that it takes a president to translate grassroots movements into legislative and regulatory change? Who except folks with chips on their shoulders would hear in that obvious fact of life a slam at Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly when it came from the mouth of one of the most pro-African American politicians in US history?

We, too--we voters--absolutely cannot allow the collective MSM (mainstream media) to dictate this election, whether by running unflattering photos of Ms. Clinton (itself a sexist act because of the disparate value assigned to older men vs. older women), or by picking a let's you and him fight battle between the two leading Democrats in order to divide and conquer the Democratic vote.

We're watching media anchors and spokespersons attempt to do exactly this. Unless Clinton and Obama figure this out and find a greater interest in shooting it down than in trying to make personal points from it, we're going to have a problem.

You can't ride a tiger without being in a very dangerous position.

Let's take a moment to visit the websites of the leading commentators, media, and candidates to let them know we're onto the race- and sex-baiting and want it to stop NOW. Let's start with GOP pimp Tim Russert. A, there were no "tears." Stop repeating the lie, as you did this morning on MSNBC, because it's a lie. B. Stop repeating Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s odious smear, as you did this morning on MSNBC, because it's a smear. Your job is to report fact, not haul around partisan garbage.